MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891481456 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2860-8

Effect of action-based cognitive remediation on cognition and neural activity in bipolar disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2891481456 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline V. Ott, Maj Vinberg, Christopher R. Bowie, Ellen Margrethe Christensen, Gitte M. Knudsen, Lars Vedel Kessing, Kamilla Woznica Miskowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersRegion HovedstadenH. Lundbeck A/SRigshospitaletLundbeckfonden
KeywordsCognitionMedicineRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Cognitive remediation therapyBipolar disorderAction (physics)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is present in bipolar disorder (BD) during the acute and remitted phases and hampers functional recovery. However, there is currently no clinically available treatment with direct and lasting effects on cognitive impairment in BD. We will examine the effect of a novel form of cognitive remediation, action-based cognitive remediation (ABCR), on cognitive impairment in patients with BD, and explore the neural substrates of potential treatment efficacy on cognition. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial has a randomized, controlled, parallel-group design. In total, 58 patients with BD in full or partial remission aged 18-55 years with objective cognitive impairment will be recruited. Participants are randomized to 10 weeks of ABCR or a control group. Assessments encompassing neuropsychological testing and mood ratings, and questionnaires on subjective cognitive complaints, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life are carried out at baseline, after 2 weeks of treatment, after the end of treatment, and at a six-month-follow-up after treatment completion. Functional magnetic resonance imaging scans are performed at baseline and 2 weeks into treatment. The primary outcome is a cognitive composite score spanning verbal memory, attention, and executive function. Two complete data sets for 52 patients will provide a power of 80% to detect a clinically relevant between-group difference on the primary outcome. Behavioral data will be analyzed using mixed models in SPSS while MRI data will be analyzed with the FMRIB Expert Analysis Tool (FEAT). Early treatment-related changes in neural activity from baseline to week 2 will be investigated for the dorsal prefrontal cortex and hippocampus as the regions of interest and with an exploratory whole-brain analysis. DISCUSSION: The results will provide insight into whether ABCR has beneficial effects on cognition and functioning in remitted patients with BD. The results will also provide insight into early changes in neural activity associated with improvement of cognition, which can aid future treatment development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03295305 . Registered on 26 September 2017.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207